Who Controls the User Experience? AMD’s Carrizo Thoroughly Tested
by Ian Cutress on February 4, 2016 8:00 AM ESTNegative Feedback Loops: How To Escape the Pit
During my time with AMD, a few things came out as painfully obvious. Everyone seemed enthusiastic, jubilant, and willing to talk to the ends of the earth about the product, the design, the team and the ideas, even with that sense of humbleness and humility. Meetings easily stretched into hours, and there is a great positive vibe among the employees that they have good products to use and good people to hold on to. There was little pomp and show, and no-one seemed overly worried about AMD’s recent financial news or exploits, such as the sale and lease-back of property or the movement in and out of key personnel.
Everyone was excited to be in the moment, and one person who exemplified this was Raja Koduri, who heads up the Radeon Technologies Group (RTG). I wasn’t scheduled to meet with Raja during my trip, as APUs/laptops and graphics are different departments internally, but it was by sheer coincidence that he was in town for a couple of days while I was, and I bumped into him in my hotel. We shared an uber into the office, and I talked his ear off about AMD, the perception and the future. If I had my head screwed on I might have recorded the conversation, but it was clear in Raja’s responses that AMD is always looking ahead. While we are worrying about reviewing 2015 products, 2016 is almost done and engineers are working on 2017’s lineup and the march is set. Next generation parts, new process nodes, the whole lot – everyone seems to be excited to be designing new technology. It could be argued that every company is like this, but given AMD’s recent financial news I did not expect my conversations to be so buoyant, active, and everyone seemed to be happy to put in long hours where needed. The only thing they really wanted is more people – with more people they could do more things.
Having positivity, hope, and genuinely dedicated employees is one thing. Having the right product that sells is another, and more often than not it comes down to a single individual making one or two critical decisions that can affect a product line, a launch, or the perception of the company. One could postulate that the main goal for any company is to stay afloat, to keep the bank balance in the black (which provides a return for shareholders and increases the value of the company). This can be done in a number of ways, but typically it comes down to revenue, profit and margins. To put it another way, a company needs sales, efficiency and repeat business, which creates a positive feedback loop.
Specifically talking about AMD, AMD’s goal is to sell more products. This could be through diversification or innovation, but selling more at a higher efficiency keeps the company going. If users like the product, they keep buying the next one, and the next one. A user (consumer or enterprise) needs to buy a device from an OEM, and an OEM has the same goal – sales and efficiency. So they want both the cheapest option that will get the biggest margin. AMD needs to keep the OEMs happy as well, so they keep buying their products.
So Consider This
| Stage 1 | AMD has had two mobile platforms for several years. If we pick the last generation – Kaveri and Beema, these were two different platforms, using two different core sets, two different chipsets and two different designs. Kaveri and Beema addressed different markets, with a small intersection. |
| Stage 2 | A major OEM says designing two different platforms is expensive, meaning designing AMD systems is expensive. The OEM wants AMD to simplify costs to help their bottom line, and doing so would maintain a healthy relationship. This would allow OEMs to make one design for one chassis, and adjust the APU/firmware as needed without much effort and no need to design two motherboards, two sets of power delivery, and so on. |
| Stage 3 | AMD does this with Carrizo and Carrizo-L. The APUs are pin compatible, with Carrizo-L using Puma+ cores but limited in terms of TDP, memory bandwidth (single channel) and ultimately aims for lower cost. Carrizo can use dual channel, has the new Excavator cores and is the current high end mobile part. |
| Stage 4 | OEM creates one design, but ends up with Carrizo platforms that are physically limited by the Carrizo-L limitations. But it saves money, which is what their customers want. OEM builds a few products (some end up Carrizo only, some Carrizo-L only, but all limited by Carrizo-L). AMD saves extra work for the OEMs, OEMs increase margins. |
| Stage 5 | User buys product at the new low shiny price, but due to some of the cutbacks has a bad experience. The system is slow, and not performing as well. Perhaps the power delivery system isn’t suited for such a high TDP, or the chassis design causes throttling, or the low price means a TN panel with a mechanical drive. The low price may also be due to pre-installed bloatware subsidizing the material cost. |
| Stage 6 | Users do not like to be told they have spent their hard earned money on a bad device, and associate the bad experience with either the OEM, whose logo is on the device, or the CPU/APU manufacturer, whose sticker is next to the wrist pad. |
| Stage 7 | Either no resale to that user, or they attempt a different configuration, or they are stuck with a budget/contract that requires them to stay on the path. With any wiggle room, or when advising others who have budget, they advise against the anecdotal bad experience. |
If we had a poll system for our articles I would stick one in here – who is at fault? Is it AMD for simplifying the design, causing high end products to be put in cheaper designed platforms? Is it the OEM, asking for an easier solution to design, or for trying to gain sales in a race to the bottom? Or is it the end user for asking for a lower price, not willing to pay for that $30 upgrade, or being price constrained in the first place?
Perhaps this is a silly question, and no-one is at fault. This is sometimes how the race-to-the-bottom, or how a value proposition, works. In this scenario, it generates a negative feedback loop, one that can be notoriously difficult to get out of.
What Solutions are there?
| Solution 1 | Make a product that blows the competition out of the water. For the current climate in processors, semiconductors, software, architecture (x86), knowledge and application, as well as physics in lithography nodes, it becomes pretty much impossible without a fundamental paradigm change, and even then something like HBM (High Bandwidth Memory on AMD’s Fiji GPUs) required many years of research and collaboration with specific partners. If we consider the monitor space, the race-to-bottom on 1080p flat screen panels went on for 10 years, with monitors over 1080p being very expensive. Then a combination of cheap 2560x1440 Korean panels flooded the market, with three new disruptive technologies (G-Sync, FreeSync, 4K) hot on the heels. |
| Solution 2 | AMD makes their budget and mainstream platforms require different designs, similar to pre-Carrizo. This would mean OEMs have to have two design teams, but it would almost guarantee a minimum level of performance based on the platform you have. The obvious downside is that the OEMs would not like it, even though they already do it with other semiconductor firms and very few laptop lines are similar, so they’re making a few dozen already. The issue is that OEMs want to be efficient with the money and time, and AMD doesn’t want to lose the major contracts it has. |
| Solution 3 | OEMs fight against bad configurations. Unfortunately this is very difficult. Sales and requests from distributors govern future trends, so if a country requires 40% of notebooks to be under $400, then that is what the OEM will make. OEMs also have separate deals with IC manufacturers – perhaps they can save $0.01 per design by using a lower grade audio NIC that 95% of users won’t notice, or DRAM company XYZ is a long term partner so the OEM doesn’t want to disturb that partnership. Ultimately if a user wants 1TB of space and a 17-inch device but only has $400, it will end up with a mechanical hard-drive and a low quality 1366x768 screen. |
| Solution 4 | Distributors stock only certain models with quality controls. While noble, that won’t happen any time soon, because another distributor will just take the business. |
| Solution 5a | Distributors need to stock more models, or variants with better components (WiFi, screen). Again, this is difficult because distributors don’t want to sit on stock that might not sell, or deal with 450 variants of the same machine. The only people that can do this are the big OEMs that sell direct to customers. But if you’ve ever navigated HP’s website, trying to configure the exact system is a bit of a nightmare. Dell does this better than most big OEMs, but the options are still fairly limited. |
| Solution 5b | Distributors need to stock more models. If more people see the products on shelves, then arguably it would be part of the mind set when it comes time to buy. This has issues, aside from idle stock, but also many companies pay for space in brick-and-mortar stores, and advertising can be expensive. It’s hard to force a big marketing and distribution campaign without money. |
| Solution 6 | Users have to make informed decisions. That’s what places like AnandTech are for, so cutting through the FUD and presenting it in the best way is what we aim to do. But again, while we wish more people would read our analysis, most users end up getting advice from ‘the family friend that knows about computers’, or they are simply fighting budget constraints. |
| Solution 7 | The Killer App. Similar to solution one, but find a way that your product has the next must-have idea and still have a good user experience, e.g. a must-have app that greatly benefits from HSA. |
| Solution 8 | Deal with what affects user experience. Is it just about the quality of the components? Some of the devices we tested in this piece came with pre-installed bloatware, some of it scanning the hard drive so much that the CPU was being used and never allowed to idle. This bloatware is added because companies like Norton, or even Intel’s McAfee (even on an AMD system) pay the OEM to have their software preinstalled. So the OEM can save $0.02 per unit, increase margins, but it forces that negative feedback loop in a big way. |
Some companies in the past have dealt with contra-revenue, selling processors at below cost or with deals on multiple parts when purchased together. Very few companies, typically ones with large market shares in other areas, have access to this. Some members of the industry also see it as not fighting fair, compared to actually just pricing the parts lower in the first place.
Unfortunately, no matter how much positivity AMD has, that negative feedback loop is hard to get out of. It is not one person’s fault, and every solution is a double-edged sword that requires one part of the chain to take the hit – either AMD, the OEMs or the buyers. Chances are it won’t ever be the last two, which puts AMD in a precarious position of either trying to define their position at the risk of angering their partners, or continuing down an uncertain road.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
175 Comments
View All Comments
Gadgety - Sunday, February 7, 2016 - link
So AMD's marketing and distribution strategy is a failure. The way it's described it would seem consumers specifying their own PCs would be a away around the dominant logic determined by the existing channels. With today's production technology tailor made products on demand should be possible.The other thing I don't get, is why doesn't AMD release a desktop Carrizo 4K capable APU for the FM2+ platform? Do they want to help the motherboard manufacturers sell more motherboards once the new AM4 socket APU:s are out in 2017, or do they want to sell their own existing products?
JMC2000 - Sunday, February 7, 2016 - link
I think it's more along the lines of having an installed base of AM4 boards before any Zen-based APUs roll out.It is possible that if the Athlon X4 845 sells well, AMD could release a full Carrizo part on FM2+.
AlB80 - Sunday, February 7, 2016 - link
What is discrete graphic chip in Lenovo?512sp GCN1.2.... I suspect that this combination is unreal.
Jamesiii - Sunday, February 7, 2016 - link
I have actually ordered Dell's AMD A8-8600P. It is intended as a media machine with the selling points being the low power equating to quiet and the 4K capability. The one thing I did notice is that he does have the Single Channel DDR3L 1600MHz memory. There is no indication on if it unlocks the watts to 35, but I have my doubts given the choice of RAM.I will know more when I get it on Thursday and will update if anyone is still view this thread. But, at $380.00 it is not a bad choice for a media machine.
tygrus - Sunday, February 7, 2016 - link
OBM (the brands) bid for designs by the ODM's based on the design cost and the expected volume. I high cost Intel design can be made profitable by the expectation of very high volumes. Even the most popular AMD design is expected to sell fewer than a low-volume Intel design. Business limitations and commercial forces bias the system towards Intel. Intel also have deeper pockets to sponsor/partner/subsidise designs to make them Intel exclusive. From manufactures to distributors to retail, Intel penalise (withdraw discounts/subsidies) anyone who lets AMD gain market share (many limited to <10%) and limit the use of the "best" designs for AMD (forced to sell only A4 & A6 instead of A8 or better, limit battery and other features so Intel always looks better). The "Intel brakes" applied to AMD limits their opportunities and potential earnings. This has limited the AMD R&D spending and forced AMD to stay behind in some aspects. It's amazing what AMD has done with 28nm but think of the advantage they could have had with 22nm and 14nm if successful achieved much earlier (no more than 9months after Intel).every1hasaids - Monday, February 8, 2016 - link
I owned (owned being the operative word there) a Y700 with the AMD Carrizo FX8800P and can attest to the fact that the cooling solution and probably several other pieces of that device reviewed in this article are not the same design as what is available on the market in the US. There is a known issue of Lenovo skimping on the VRMs on the AMD Y700 which results in heavy throttling taking place. I couldn't play any game for more than 15 minutes before heavy throttling would occur. The data gathered from the review sample in this article should not be associated with the available product on the market. There appears to also be an FX-8700P variant of the Y700 out there however I cannot find any documentation of the existence of this device on Lenovo's site. Needless to say that I returned that laptop due to the significant throttling problems. I wish this site of some other site could get their hands on one of the FX-8800P Y700 laptops available in the US and put it through testing to reveal the problems with the unit. I'm guessing that they intend on releasing a Carrizo-L version of that laptop with the same motherboard which is why the VRMs are not up to the task of the 35w Carrizo and the added consumption of the dedicated graphics chip.Why are there no units out there that can handle the 35w TDP Carrizo and a dedicated graphics card!?!?!?! It would be a great alternative to the Intel/Nvidia gaming notebook monopoly.
I'm hoping Zen/Polaris will actually see some adoption from OEMs and maybe AMD could even get involved in assisting proper implementation of their products so that the negative stigma could get nullified.
Jamesiii - Monday, February 8, 2016 - link
The FX-8700P would more properly be called an A10-8700P. It sounds like a bit of marketing if they are using the FX handle.On gaming sites people are suggesting you turn off AMD's Turbo Core when gaming to avoid the FPS jumping up and down and overclock the processors. Overclocking a laptop is dicey at best though.
Malih - Monday, February 8, 2016 - link
maybe Microsoft should start making an AMD Surface laptop if they want good competition to drive PC SalesMarcelo Viana - Monday, February 8, 2016 - link
I just don't understand why in a comparison carrizo vs intel you didn't take out the intel chips memory in order to both have 1 channel memory, so do a benchmark for us in a same condition.The entire article show that intel offering has OEMs given what intel chips need, so the point in comparing carrizo vs intel is the chip itself not platform, since AMD has no platform at all.
Elensar286 - Monday, February 8, 2016 - link
That's a large focus of this article, though. The whole point was an investigation in to the implementation of Carrizo APUs by the OEM. It's highlighting exactly how like you said, the OEM platform, is hindering the potential of Carrizo processors.